Slashdot Mirror
Americans Don't Want Targeted Ads
itwbennett writes "A survey by the Berkeley Center for Law and Technology at the University of California Berkeley School of Law and the Annenberg School for Communication at the University of Pennsylvania finds that US residents do not want to receive Web advertising tailored to their interests. 66% of those surveyed said they don't want tailored, or targeted, online ads and when asked if online ad vendors should deliver targeted ads by tracking customers' behavior across multiple Web sites, 86% of the 1,000 respondents said no. 35% of respondents said executives of companies that use personal information illegally should face jail time, and 18% said those companies should be put out of business. 'While privacy advocates have lambasted behavioral targeting for tracking and labeling people in ways they do not know or understand, marketers have defended the practice by insisting it gives Americans what they want: advertisements and other forms of content that are as relevant to their lives as possible,' the study said. 'In high percentages, [US residents] stand on the side of privacy advocates.'"
Do you think the Marketers give a rats ass?
The greatest revenge in life is massive success.
Wy do people think things like TiVO, Hulu,... are so successful?
I believe the general public is tired of be bombarded to "BUY MORE!"
To make people aware of what they don't necessarily know about or necessarily need/want. Doesn't targeted marketing miss out on this aspect of advertising?
If I can not smoke in heaven, then I shall not go. -- Mark Twain
When given the choice between targeted and non targeted advertising, I would pick targeted. When given the choice between any form of advertising and no advertising, I would pick no advertising.
But more importantly, I don't think I, or the majority of people, like knowing that a company is rifling through my 'personal stuff' to find out what I like and dislike. It gives you a feeling of having your privacy invaded. Just a few hours ago I wrote my wife to say I had gotten a stain on my shirt from lunch, and google was nice enough to put up a stain remover advertisement right after I fired off the email. It is a little bit off putting.
marketers have defended the practice by insisting it gives Americans what they want: advertisements and other forms of content that are as relevant to their lives as possible,'
Did I just read that right? Americans want advertisement? Yeah, I want advertisements, just like I want another hole in my dick. What sort of a psychotic, delusional dream world must whoever this quote was mined from live in?
To the haters: You can't win. If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine
if you really could use a Guinness right now?
No targeted ads!
It's NOT me! It's the meds! I'm on 1000mg of Fukitol.
Seriously, this is like asking, "do you like being tortured?" Of course Americans (and citizens of any other nation) would say no!
I suspect they will be able to identify two markets
A) those who react positively to targeted ads. Those they will target as much as possible
B) those who react negatively to targeted ads. Those they will target more subtly. IE follow the Steak ad with a soap ad.
They will use the targeting criteria to place people into pool A or B.
What matters to companies is not whether targeted ads are what consumers want but whether they generate sales. No sane person wants any kind of ad, targeted or not.
-- The reader anything less than completely failing to not misunderstand this sig is cursed.
I would love to see the wording of the questions because, honestly, I cannot imagine why anyone would not want to see ads (assuming you have to see _an_ ad) that is targeted at their interests rather than just any random ad. Now, I understand people wanting their privacy respected and that's why I want to see the questions because, given how lopsided the responses seemed to be, I suspect the questions were phrased in a way that made them more about privacy and less about targeted advertising.
Yes, I realize there is a connection between the two but that's not the point - the poll appears to have been about targeted advertising and not about privacy and, as I said, I can't imagine people not wanting to see ads that are focused on their interests.
Two problems.. The population seems to think the automated systems care more about their privacy .. they just want to sell you stuff, not sell the history off to some PI that your ex hired ..
And it's a loaded question. Article headlines saying Americans don't want targeted ads, but really it's Americans hate getting spied on. Had you have simply asked the question at hand "would you like advertising that is more likely to be involved or associated with your interests or your current activities."
Arguably they could say your not allowed to show ads about football, when your watching the football game. Cause after all that's targeting your advertisement ..
i never pay attention to banner ads anyway so i don't notice if they are targeted or not.
I do know that i appreciate amazon.com's suggested material. is that what people don't want? i kind of like it.
Agreed. I'll bet if you polled the same people they'd say they hate seeing weight loss/dating/bizop ads everywhere.
But the fact is that those are the things that you can advertise to based on the general demographic of a large site. Without more specific information....yeah.
Before you mod me funny, think, perhaps I was insightfully funny?
What most of us want is NO ADS. They're annoying, distracting and whole purpose for being is to manipulate people.
If we are in the market for said product we'd go shopping. There has yet to be a commercial that has moved me with their... oooh, shiny...
CAPTCHA: cringe
It is not about what you and I want. If i had my way, I would never see an advertisement. Instead it is what the marketing people want. They want ads that reaches their audience and makes them money. And as long as targeted ads make them money, that is what we are going see.
I wonder who verifies those polls. Not related to the number of respondents but how are the questions being phrased/asked.
I would take those marketers to a turkish bazaar, where sellers grab you by hands and drag you to their stores, even if you just want to pass by to a meeting or something. Leave them there for a couple days and then check back with them. Maybe this would change their opinions...
...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
Of course Americans don't want targeted advertising. They know it will just result in more advertisements for porn, penis pills, and 'personals' sites (quotes because we all know they are just the www version of 1-900 numbers).
Motorcycles, Robots, Space Gossip and More!
If I must have ads, I would rather have targeted ads for something I might actually want or use, than things I do not want or use.
Lessons we could learn, at Amazon or Netflix if I say I am not interested in Season 1 or CSI: Anywhere, DON'T offer me season 2, 3, 4 and 5. There is a Circle of Hell reserved for recommendation systems that offer me the same product over and over in different colors.
If I bought a new Lens Kit for my Canon DSLR, then you offer me a Canon DSLR and I say "I already got one" don't offer me a Nikon DSLR.
Somehow they need to find a way to tag their products as Series, and also Durable Goods vs Accessories or Refil kits, not just as a bunch of tangentally related SKU#s that this customer or that customer bought.
Maybe as with Tivo we need Ad filtering devices that can Blacklist Ads we don't like, for products we don't need. This is really the only way to keep your "preferences" data at home and not have it abused.
I'm pretty sure she meant no when she said no.
How about a "targeted" email of the results of this study to all online advertisers. Certainly it's important enough that they won't mind receiving 2 or 3 copies since it's "business relevant". We do want to make sure these people are inconvenienced, er I mean informed.
DMCA - Chilling free speech since 1998.
I don't have to RTFA to be able to judge from the summary that the study's questions were leading. If the questions were asked the right way, I'm sure people would respond that they'd prefer to see ads that are relevant as opposed to punch the monkey and black market viagra ads. From the summary, it sounds like all the study really says is that people don't want more advertising.
Overclockers
Americans don't want their web usage tracked.
They likely do want targeted advertisements. But the dislike of tracking wins out. Of course 90% of them signed up for a supermarket discount card and pay for everything with a credit card so they don't really care, they just think they do.
I'd rather see an ad for a video game than for tampons. Of course I'd prefer not to see an ad at all, but that's irrelevant.
I'd also prefer that any random web advertising company can't see all the things I've purchased and web sites I've visited.
No, seriously, if even a website like Amazon.com can't 'recommend' me items correctly based on past purchases, how the hell else are competitors gonna get it right ? I really don't mind targeted ads (but then again, I'm European) but they *do* have to get it right and recommend/advertise me stuff that I *really* would like to buy.
Ask someone "would you like me to constantly monitor your life and give you adds based on what we learn about you?" and you'll get "no" every time. If you ask "would you prefer that adds be relevant to your life?" and you'll get "yes" much more often.
Add that to the fact that people will say "I hate that idea" but then if you were to have them browse with targeted adds and without (and distract them by telling them it's a study about a new web browser, but just use IE with a skin or something) and ask them after which one they thought handled adds better, they'd pick targeted adds without knowing why. A survey is not scientific, and a good pollster can make a poll say what they want it to say, and in this day and age, often they are trying to show a result rather than learn something.
Learn to love Alaska
If all I ever got was targeted ads I would know nothing about feminine hygiene products. Knowing these dirty little secrets that women have is part of being a teenager. I would have missed out on a lot of immaturity if all they showed me was ads for Atari 2600 games, pizza and the pepsi challenge.
random ads to dating services? how about "save your kingdom"! and play some crappy role playing game using elfy looking hot chicks on their google ads. -mandy http://www.mandymoorehol.com/
Sorry, left that one out... yeah, participants race, nationality, education, religion, etc could cause results to change too. The 'etc.' was to signify the normal list of the major demographics, I didn't think I actually needed to list them all.
greed@All_Evils:~#
... except that I do mind the means to get them targeted.
Otherwises, besides that, I of course want ads relevant to my interests like an offer to purchase the xkcd book, rather than Viagra and lottery ads. If you must get ads, that is.
I think pretty much everyone agree.
Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
and when asked if they were ok with getting 80% less advertising in exchange for the ads actually being about things they were interested in, consumers replied "lol wut?"
seriously people - ads pay for the crap you're looking at. Do you want half the page covered in ads? Your alternative is to have much fewer ads, but have them be about things relevant to you. There is no third "everything for free!!!!" option, no matter how strong your sense of entitlement is.
I prefer ads that are relevant to my interests so targeted ads are a good thing in that respect. On the other hand, I generally don't want companies doing what it takes to understand me personally well enough to target ads for me. If Amazon uses my past browsing and purchasing patterns on their site to make recommendations that's o.k. by me. What I don't want is a third party using my interactions with a company in order to target ads. It feels creepy and I resent the intrusion.
Very often, people confuse simple with simplistic. The nuance is lost on most. - Clement Mok
By the way, if anyone here is in marketing or advertising...kill yourself. Thank you. Just planting seeds, planting seeds is all I'm doing. No joke here, really. Seriously, kill yourself, you have no rationalisation for what you do, you are Satan's little helpers. Kill yourself, kill yourself, kill yourself now. Now, back to the show. Seriously, I know the marketing people: 'There's gonna be a joke comin' up.' There's no fuckin' joke. Suck a tail pipe, hang yourself...borrow a pistol from an NRA buddy, do something...rid the world of your evil fuckin' presence.
- Bill Hicks
I come here for the love
1000 people isn't really a large pool to guesstimate the preferences of the American population.
Let me guess, you aren't educated in statistics, right?
As it happens, 1000 is roughly the magic number from which you can extrapolate meaningful statistics about a large population.
18% said those companies should be put out of business
Cool, and i thought i was standing alone in that attitude. Nuke the damned companies.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
most people would take the targeted ads.
I don't know about most people, but I prefer non-targeted ads. I think they are far less likely to trick me into buying stuff. And, I really don't want to buy more stuff than what I come up with on my own. In fact, I would prefer to live in an ad-free world. I would even be willing to pay more for this better world. I find 99% of all ads insulting to my intelligence and mind-numbingly boring. I also view advertising in general as psychological warfare directed at me and have long ago conditioned myself to view all advertising and advertisers as personal enemies! In fact, I am less likely to buy something after having an ad about it shoved in my face or blared into my ears. If I made a major purchase I'd prefer a consumer magazine comparing different products and I always perform extensive research on the 'net before buying an expensive geek toy. I then tend to pay more attention to negative reviews.
When 1person suffers from a delusion,it is called insanity.When many people suffer from a delusion,it is called religion
'In high percentages, [US residents] stand on the side of privacy advocates.'"
This means the marketeers will ignore it.
Didya see the new Norton Ad pair with Dokken and the Chicken?
Yet yaknow, it's that Safe-For-Prudes divider line that keeps the ads from really being fun to watch. I'd watch ads where the advertiser cut loose if I clicked three disclaimers to CYA for them legally from Mr. Thompson.
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
I wonder how much of this is dislike of adverts and the tracking and how much is the way the question was phrased? Would the "general public" have been so against it if it was just "tracking ads" rather than "tracking ads across multiple sites"? And are the marketing companies now going to come back with their own survey worded to say "would you prefer useful and relevant adverts or a random collection of anything?" to prove that people do like being tracked?
On the plus side, at least people think that CEOs and companies should actually be punished for misusing information rather than just going "oh well, never mind".
The 'answer' given in the headline is to a question very different than the one asked.
I'd bet the vast majority of people would rather see targeted ads than random ads. There is no need to give away your private information to get targeted ads - you could have ad finding algorithm live in your computer and display targeted ads *without* letting arbitrary third parties track you online.
Slap Chop. Your Gonna Love My Nuts
Facebook shows me targeted ads, with an opportunity to give feedback; if I don't like an ad, I can indicate not just that I don't like it, but why. The ads are unobtrusive: they're off to the side, out of the way of the content, and they don't blink at me. I rarely see ads for stupid crap I have no interest in (with the exception of Facebook's mobsters game).
It can be a little creepy though. The other day I replied to a comment from a friend who happens to be black and female. Facebook immediately showed me an ad for a black dating site. This could have been coincidental, but it was the first time I'd seen that particular ad...
$x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
$x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
Something I've never understood about online advertising: a marketer puts up ads on a website, and people go out of their way to avoid/block those ads because they find them "annoying" and "always getting in the way". So what does the marketing department do? That's right; they find ways to make the ads even more obtrusive and annoying! I guess I could never understand how getting in the faces of unwilling viewers (who are actively trying to avoid you) is supposed to bring in more sales. There seems to be some ass-backward logic at work here.
Instead of working on "targeting" ads, maybe they should work on forms of advertising which don't somehow annoy the hell out of the majority of people who are likely to see those ads. Maybe something like "opt-in" advertising? I'm no expert so I don't know. All I know is that the present way of advertising seems rather self-defeating IMHO.
This space for rent!
I don't want any advertising at all. That may result in "free" sites like this ceasing to exist. I can accept that. I can not emphasize enough to people how much more pleasant adblock makes the World Wide Web.
Google has been experimenting with ad targeting based on credit rating. ""Let's say we have an advertiser who wants to reach consumers with a high FICO score who applied for mortgages in the first quarter," Korsunsky says. "We can provide the advertiser with a list of Web sites on our Google content network that index against this segment. ... "Marketers expanding into a term like 'credit card' into a campaign -- they should have their ad copy prequalify a good credit shopper," Korsunsky says. "So adding copy like 'have good credit, apply for a card today' would let marketers filter out people without good credit."
Google - now, with more evil!
Is that why Chuck was having poor ratings and almost got canceled forever (it got lucky for season 3 renewal!)? [grin]
Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
And because they do it, and I work from home on a semi-regular basis (using VPN and OWA), almost all of the ads I get are for the company I work for.
It makes me giggle that they are wasting their money.
You say you want a revolution....
Really? I don't mind a lot of ads. I hate the ones that interrupt what I'm trying to get to, which is why I use Adblock, but if the ads aren't intrusive they can be quite informative. I get an email daily from Newegg, telling me what's on sale, about coupon codes, and so on. I'm not always in the market to buy computer gear, but when I am, I buy from them. Their ads are informative, and they back it up with good service. Nonprofit groups that need funds and volunteers also find people via advertising... would you deny them that? Sure, we're a "consumerist" society, but that's part of capitalism. If you don't want to be in a consumerist society, move to Malaysia and do subsistence farming.
My blog. Good stuff (when I remember to update it). Read it.
:I like my privacy but... If I must have ads, I would rather have targeted ads for something I might actually want or use.
I like free services so... if I will ignore ads, I would rather have advertisers not invade my privacy.
But... the future refused to change.
I want to find out about stuff that I could use. If there exists a product that is perfectly suited to my needs, I want to be told about it. There is absolutely NO way to do this without knowing something about me. Therefore, I want targeted advertising. A significant part of the reason I read slashdot, and browse newegg and gizmodo, is so that I can find stuff that meets my needs. I waste enormous amounts of time doing that in order to find a product I actually want. If google read all the emails, IMs, &c that I sent and figured out that I was looking for a gadget with properties x, y, and z, and then marketed one to me I would be ecstatic. If you don't want that, I don't understand you. What people don't want is: 1. disruptive advertising - we all hate popup adds and flash banners 2. bad advertising - see all viagra, tampon, &c references above 3. invasions of privacy - no one wants the general public to know they're in the market for a vibrator (well, almost no one) It doesn't mean they're not hoping for an add for the perfect one I think we can all agree on this one.
The article isn't so much about targeted advertising as it is how the user's data is obtained. What the article actually says is we don't want to be tracked across multiple sites. It doesn't mention targeted advertising using data acquired on a single site.
I have a woman and money. Life is good.
Of course most people say they don't want targeted ads. I mean it's like asking "Would you like your taxes to be raised." Of course people say no because other things being equal people would prefer zero taxes and almost no ads. Of course if you asked whether you would prefer the government increase the gas tax or income tax, or whether a tax hike would be a worthwhile price to pay for universal health care you would get very different answers.
In this sense ads are quite similar to taxes. We would prefer to get our government services for free and our media without any ads but since that's not possible question that matters is what tradeoffs you would like to make. I suspect if you asked people whether they would prefer to get tageted advertisements, a substantially larger number of untargeted ads or no longer get free webmail and the like I think you'll find many people take the first option.
Also it's well documented that people seem to only really care about privacy/psuedo-anonymity/targeting when someone asks these kind of ominously phrased questions. I mean all the 'experts' go around saying vague ominous sounding things about losing privacy/etc so you ask people a question about privacy/etc.. and they think, "Hmm, I don't really understand what all the fuss is but it sounds kinda ominous and scary...you know I probably should be more responsible and worry about these issues." So your never finding out how much people actually mind losing their privacy and the like, they may not even notice. All you're really measuring is how much vague scary statements make people think they should worry about something.
Ohh, and the fact that so many experts seem to take these concerns seriously is no more useful. If you dismiss a danger like that rather than looking thoughtful and concerned you appear less serious. I mean it's the same reason doctors and other medical experts in the mainstream media never get up and say, "Pshhaw, marijuanna use by teens isn't anything to worry about," despite having uncontrovertable data that it is way less risky that many other accepted activities. Once society views something as posing a risk and takes it to be a serious matter then any role models who refuse to treat it as a matter of serious concern are considered irresponsible and blamed for any harm that might have been avoided by being overly cautious.
If you liked this thought maybe you would find my blog nice too:
Without knowing the questions, this is meaningless. Most people don't want ads, period. If the question was "do you want to receive targeted ads?", then of course most people said no. Targeted ads are still ads. Nothing surprising there. The important question is whether people would rather have targeted ads or non-targeted ads, when they see ads.
Does that mean you don't use Google, or you just don't want to pay to use it? I block almost all ads but I accept Google ads because I like being able to google. I'd rather put up with the annoyance of ads than not being able to find what I'm looking for relatively easily.
And no, I really don't believe that anyone on YouTube should be paid for making videos and posting them online.
While I'll say being paid isn't a right or an entitlement, I do want to support those who created stuff I like. I also believe there would not be as many creators, sure there would still be some just not as many, if they had to give away their creations.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
And probably earlier. I recall Clark Howard talking about how to go to doubleclick.com and go through the hoops to have Doubleclick not track you across websites using its banner ads with cookies - back in 1997.
Tag lost or not installed.
Advertisers waste lots of money on ads that are ignored.
Advertisers wouldn't pay for ads if they didn't work, at least not for long.
I remember when I bought a house. Got lots of ads from contractors. If the advertisers realized I was a do-it-your-selfer, I would have loved to get ads from building material suppliers.
What, you don't get ads from building material suppliers? I rent an apartment and I get ads from Home Depot, Lowes, and other suppliers.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
By having this it would be very good for both the consumers and both the companies. The consumers would have ads targeting to their interests which might would also help ad companies create revenue for the increased number of visits this would create. Although this is a good idea, it would also be a huge invasion of privacy for many consumers, that do not want their history tracked by their searches.
Advertisers wouldn't pay for ads if they didn't work, at least not for long.
They "work" in a crude, approximate, inefficient way.
Actually some of those who sell ads, like Google provides tools to advertizers so they can determine which ads work best. Google Analytics is a tool to analyze website traffic and marketing effectiveness.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
...from lunch, though. He's a cannibal, which is possibly more interesting than a spy.
If you want a vision of the future, imagine a youtube comments section scrolling - forever.
..finds that U.S. residents do not want to receive Web advertising of any sort.
There, fixed that for you.
Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
Said like a true marketer: advertisers know what consumers want, and don't need consumers telling advertisers what is wanted.
Hate to break it to you, but people hate ads. All US ads, and this probably holds in most other countries, do not provide information about products, instead the ads try to convince people to buy things they don't need based on feelings toward the brand. The only people who like ads are marketers and corporations who profit from them. You know it's true, you just won't admit it.
I thought of this back when I had a Tivo and its Thumbs Up/Down rating for shows. Tivo then uses your ratings of different shows and what you record to suggest new shows. I always thought it'd be great if I could do that during commercials. Once I thumbs down a commercial, don't show it to me again (I'm just gonna zap it anyway).
I don't get ads most of the time in my browser (NoScript, content filtering), but I always though it was retarded to insist on throwing useless ads at me. Why do I, a male, care about female personal care items, etc.? I'd much rather have techie/geekie/cool ads if I have to have them. You're more likely to have me follow-up and be interested in it, which is more likely to result in a sale.
I think if most Americans have no choice but to have ads (which, face it, most of the time you don't have a choice), if they really thought about it, they'd want ads that fit them - or at least a way to filter out ads that completely don't fit them.
I just set Opera Preferences to Cookies=OFF Flash=OFF ReferrerLogging=OFF GifAnimation=OFF.
Then i Edit Site Preferences to only allow things when i want.
Like youtube.com FlashOn and CookiesOn to allow autologin.
More Privacy and faster browsing for me!
urlfilter.ini
[exclude]
http://www.google./*.ico
http://www.google./images/*
http://images.google./*.ico
http://images.google./intl/*
http://video.google./*.ico
http://video.google./img/*
http://s.ytimg.com/yt/img/master-vfl*.png
http://intellitx/
Basic system32\drivers\etc\hosts file
127.0.0.1 localhost
127.0.0.1 www.google-analytics.com
127.0.0.1 pagead.googlesyndication.com
127.0.0.1 pagead2.googlesyndication.com
127.0.0.1 adservices.google.com
127.0.0.1 www.googleadservices.com
127.0.0.1 imageads.googleadservices.com
127.0.0.1 ad.yieldmanager.com
127.0.0.1 ads.adbrite.com
127.0.0.1 www.adbrite.com
127.0.0.1 3.adbrite.com
127.0.0.1 4.adbrite.com
TODO JavaScriptOFF...
But there still remain many Cookies to block.
Especially good stable settings for n00bs that cant defend
themselfs. I'm unsure if that's possible though...
I want to see ads for tools and not tampons. I WANT targeted ads!
Oh, how I wish that software existed to block such ads - perhaps in the form of a browser plugin or extension. If only such software existed. Oh well. ;)
The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
(1) Like most slashdotters, I have configured my machine to not show ads. So no I am not complicit.
/. than the one I prefer (all comments displayed, and nested). Sale lost.
(2) Slashdot is not like most "ad-supported websites". For one thing, unlike most sites, people can and do subscribe to Slashdot to both support it and avoid ads.
(3) For another, people can and do get absolved from ads by none other than slashdot itself. Apparently you are not one of those "thanked for making slashdot great" or you would have acknowledge this possibility.
(4) Analogy time. Advertisers are like defense contractors with mines to peddle. Viewers are like children wanting to play soccer on that big open field while keeping both legs intact. The two sides, you see, are at odds. Now these defense contractors they _will_ sell their mines. And viewers _will_ lose as a result. But a fair number of people, mostly soccer ball players and wannabes, are not happy with the arrangement.
(5) Advertisers have LONG abused their privileges. Given a chance to run their ads at the same volume as TV shows, they crank up the volume. Allowed 5 or 10 minutes of ad time per hour, they (the advertisers _and_ the complicit TV stations) have jacked that up to almost 20 minutes per hour, and interstitialed us to death -- an ad overlay tonight covered up part of a Jeopardy question FFS! Same online -- there was a time when you'd see a top and maybe a bottom ad. Now you feel lucky to escape some websites without having to reboot.
(6) Bill Hicks speaks more than adequately for soccer players everywhere. Yes, there is another side of the story, but frankly they've had their chance for decades and always blown it, badly. No mic for them.
(7) FWIW, slashdot's subscription rate ($10 for 1,000 ad-free pages) is reasonable to me. But offers me nothing I don't already have. I emailed Malda about it and suggested things like allowing more than 100 comments max on a page for subscribers. Apparently this is possible for some other configuration of
(8) If you want to succeed with a product, you have to make people want it, rather than ram it down their throats. This is what Bill Hicks was ever-so-politely pointing out.
(9) Good day to you, A/C. May I suggest a DVD rental of Anger Management?
I come here for the love
I'm not sure why you got modded down, you're making a good point.
Another point to consider is context-- the fact that people do different kinds of things online at different times, which may vary from day-to-day, week-to-week, etc. During one time period I may be at work and my browsing / interest behavior revolves around work-related issues. Showing me an ad for a non work-related is not likely to pique my interest during this context. At another time I may be at home with my family doing family-related stuff. My browsing during this period is most likely to be G-rated and related to family entertainment, information, or home-related needs. Occasionally I might look at a "more colorful" site and my browsing is going to be focused in ways that relate to that.
Showing me a porn ad in *ANY* context other than when I'm actually engaged in that type of activity would send me through the roof. I definitely do not want that type of advertisement to pop up during, say, my "family" browsing context, nor my "work" browsing context.
Likewise I'm not an iTunes subscriber, don't buy music online (or offline for that matter, I refuse to support the RIAA mafia) so showing me ads for music downloads and such is completely pointless. Moreover I don't give a rat's ass about most "popular" consumer items and getting in my face about it is guaranteed to get your company on my list of people NOT to buy anything from.
I agree with another previous poster-- if you show me an ad WHEN I am actually interested in buying something that relates to the ad -- BEFORE I buy something related to the ad -- I might consider it. You can determine that context by me SEARCHING for something. If I make a purchase then you should drop that as an ad trigger. Once I make the purchase I'm not likely to be interested in looking at competing products anymore and you'll just piss me off if you do.
And when I am searching-- I want several things-- information, pricing, availability, and shipping cost. Secondarily I want to know store policies on various things including returns, exchanges, gifts, etc. I want GOOD information and in a useful format. I want to be able to start from an overview and drill down to details. I want pictures from lots of angles. I want complete specifications. I want to know if it comes in different colors or sizes and what they are. I want straightforward information I can use to compare products, both within a manufacturer's line and versus competitors *I* choose.
In the online economy your store name / brand / logo / image isn't likely to mean doodly-squat to me. In fact I probably won't even notice the name until I checkout unless I've bought there before and am specifically seeking it out to buy from again. Anybody can hide behind a domain name. There are small operations with outstanding fulfillment and large well-known old-school operations with fulfillment that absolutely sucks. So playing coy and hiding your prices or playing games with product information is just STUPID. Why should I jump through your hoops when there are a thousand other stores just like yours I can visit without the hassle?
Finally, when it comes to targeted ads, generally there is a limited range of products that the marketer has to push. If my interests and activities don't clearly fall within one of those areas, the marketer just "picks something" and throws it at me. There is nothing lamer than showing me your last-ditch pitch when you know I'm not going to be remotely interested in it.
want the internet that they pay for to not carry advertising at all. The other 5% haven't figured out that they are paying to have advertising sent to them, unlike junkmail which the advertisers pay for.
Just to sum up the thread, can we say that Americans will get loads and loads of targeted ads because "The Market" wants it?
How about tailoring the ads based on the web site contents? You know, by actually studying the complete audience and site content, and not individual people?
Yeah, big web sites usually do this correctly, and especially tech web sites. However, I get a little annoyed seeing ads for clothes cleaning products while browsing a web site about art. Not all artists are slobs. Honest! How about art supplies, cameras, printing services, legal services for artists, books on publishing, etc? It shocks me how often web sites can't do this right.
If we're actively looking for a given kind of product, there are lots of useful and effective ways for suppliers to make their products known to us when required.. That does not constitute a reason or excuse for continually waving marketing drivel under our noses at all times.
Marketroids have arrogated to themselves the right to pollute every visible surface with their crap, and for some reason nobody even seems to question that right.
I often think the world would be a better place if every single marketroid was rounded up and sent to the gas chambers.
Sorry, been using no-script for so long I've forgotten =D
Don't kid yourself. It's the size of the regexp AND how you use it that counts.
You know what. All advertised products, targeted or not, are things you simply don't need. The point of advertising is to create the perceived need, on your part, out of nothing. And the perceived need isn't a need but a desire, and that's the point - to create the desire and confuse you into thinking it's a need. And you know they do it very well, the magic spell of advertising works on you.
You live in a consumerist society, you're nobody, worthless, if you don't have what everyone else has, and have your toys to play with, to distract you from better things that you should be doing instead - like, I dunno, revolution or doing things for the betterment of mankind. That's where advertising gets its power. To defeat advertising, stop being a society based on property, money, consumption and greed.
I think the root issue here is not the advertising. It's that people don't want other people tracking their online activity. Sure, no one likes ads but people have to make money. If there must be ads then I'd rather they be tailored to me - BUT, I don't want someone snooping through my internet history. That's private (or as /.ers know, not so private - so why do we fuss so much?).
"Americans don't want ads" - There, fixed that for you. Advertising agencies exist in denial. They believe they are the life source for every farking thing in the universe while at the same time all the consumers in the universe whine about all the advertising they have to endure. When will corporations get a clue and actually listen to the consumers?
I'm also happy to cease this discussion because you ignore most of what I say with "this conversation keeps getting deflected all over the place".
/. is technical enough to figure it out. Especially if Slashdot (represented by you, an A/C, at the moment) takes a less adversarial approach. But instead we have Slashdot (represented by you, an A/C, at the moment) arguing with a customer, instead of remembering the customer is ALWAYS right.
/. And what happens? Nothing. They don't have a big enough voice. Slashdot is abusing their one-sided conversation with their readers by (1) ignoring things they could do to improve the reader experience, and (2) howling at the moon as you are doing to me in this sub-thread.
You ignore alternate revenue models (like a pay-for product that offers more features) and then whine that I'm not hyper-focused on your dear little advertising-supported web site.
You trivialize my web site, without acknowledging my point that I was making about it -- that I serve content without needing to make an ad-buck from them. For that matter I could publish to only those who paid to subscribe. Or I could stop publishing. Many solutions are possible. Whining about people who don't follow your view of the world is childish.
and that you are cherry-picking single quotes to quibble with rather than addressing the whole argument
Actually that is my point. Look at my second to last comment. I made a 9 point comment and got one or two points of reply. In my last comment you responded to my first line and my last line only. Pottle - kettle, etc.
As to people bypassing shareware programs, yes they do this and it can be an arms race. But it seems like Microsoft figured it out with XP. I think
And by the way, what I posted isn't an argument. Bill Hicks is a comedian. He naturally gets the biggest laugh taking things to extreme. But his fundamental point speaks directly to the topic of this thread -- people don't want ads. Hicks is expressing some of the anger that people justifiably feel when advertisers take advantage of them, lie to them like Oracle did recently, won't shut off the ads in the middle of Jeopardy, market shamelessly to children, and on and on and on for years and decades.
Hicks vented. He had a platform to voice frustrations. Most consumers do not have this.
Closer to home, many (most?) slashdotters do not like Slashdot 2.0. They voice it in comments, they voice it in their SIGs, they no doubt send emails to the head honchos at
I think you are after some sort of theoretical victory -- "If I can just get this guy to admit that he is the man too then I will have won". This is so far from the point that it makes me laugh and want to say, once again, lighten up. Or change YOUR thinking -- you're not a tree. Models change. The net started with no ads, moved to extreme ads and it is time to throttle it back again to value ads -- marketing your feature & benefits in ad-speak.
Lose the dogmatic "You must view our ads or pay us for what WE perceive is a benefit" mentality, man. It will get you nowhere, I can guarantee you that.
Here, look, I will formally end this thread. I surrender. You are right. You and I are both the man. You win this battle.
And Slashdot is losing the war. Because they can't stop thinking of it as a war, apparently.
I come here for the love